Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The 'Georgists' Are Out and they want to tax your land

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 164 posts

Re: The 'Georgists' Are Out and they want to tax your land

#41

Post by robertlagrant »

sokoloff wrote: post #30
AlexandrB wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sustainable Land Use Hmmm, I don't get this point. If the incentive is to sell of develop your land what happens to "fallow" land that serves as a habitat for plants or animals? Seems like this would encourage developing land even if it's in a suboptimal location and would otherwise remain fallow, which seems less sustainable than the status quo.

The strongest incentive to develop land exists for land which has a high value owing to its location. Land out in the countryside would not be hugely taxed under this system.

But it'd still be taxed.

Re: The 'Georgists' Are Out and they want to tax your land

#42

Post by bastawhiz »

AlexandrB wrote: post #19
303uru wrote: post #10

I'm a huge proponent of land tax. Here's why I think it's worth considering: 1. Economic Efficiency: Unlike income or consumption taxes, an LVT is non-distortionary. It doesn't discourage productive activities like work, saving, or investment. Land is a fixed resource; its supply doesn't change with price or tax fluctuations. Therefore, an LVT wouldn't distort market incentives, unlike other taxes. By shifting the ta…

> Sustainable Land Use Hmmm, I don't get this point. If the incentive is to sell of develop your land what happens to "fallow" land that serves as a habitat for plants or animals? Seems like this would encourage developing land even if it's in a suboptimal location and would otherwise remain fallow, which seems less sustainable than the status quo.

I'm not sure that matters. If you're holding your land to cash out on it in the future, it's going to get developed regardless. Whether the land remains undeveloped for an extra few decades seems like it makes little difference either way. Plus, not every property will be paved over edge to edge. Suboptimal locations will probably get developed into something which doesn't turn the land into something that completely destroys its ecological value.

Re: The 'Georgists' Are Out and they want to tax your land

#43

Post by sokoloff »

robertlagrant wrote: post #41
sokoloff wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The strongest incentive to develop land exists for land which has a high value owing to its location. Land out in the countryside would not be hugely taxed under this system.

But it'd still be taxed.

It's taxed now as well (in almost all jurisdictions). It's just also taxed on any buildings that sit on top of it (that latter portion of which provides a disincentive to development).

Re: The 'Georgists' Are Out and they want to tax your land

#44

Post by gcapu »

strangesmells06 wrote: post #22

I personally think people's first property should be tax-free. their actual home. people own more than that The property should be taxed also corporation-owned properties should be taxed edit: i mean annual property taxes

We already have that. You get a big deduction for one of your houses if you live in it.

Re: The 'Georgists' Are Out and they want to tax your land

#45

Post by spaceman_2020 »

strangesmells06 wrote: post #22

I personally think people's first property should be tax-free. their actual home. people own more than that The property should be taxed also corporation-owned properties should be taxed edit: i mean annual property taxes

Capitalist societies across the world are in complete demographic collapse because young people can’t afford homes to raise families, and yet progressive land taxation remains an unpopular idea.

Absurd.

Re: The 'Georgists' Are Out and they want to tax your land

#46

Post by 303uru »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #33
303uru wrote: post #10

I'm a huge proponent of land tax. Here's why I think it's worth considering: 1. Economic Efficiency: Unlike income or consumption taxes, an LVT is non-distortionary. It doesn't discourage productive activities like work, saving, or investment. Land is a fixed resource; its supply doesn't change with price or tax fluctuations. Therefore, an LVT wouldn't distort market incentives, unlike other taxes. By shifting the ta…

Re non-distorionary: It distorts along a completely new axis - whether or not economic activity uses land. It's unclear (at least to me) why Google, say, whose business activity is very non-land-intensive, should be in a favorable tax position compared to, say, farming. You say "because the farmers use more land!" And it's true; they do. But if you don't already believe that land should be the determinant of tax, tha…

Sure, the LVT is not designed to be a wealth tax, but rather a tax on the unimproved value of land. Its primary purpose is to encourage efficient use of land and discourage speculative land holding, which can lead to artificial scarcity and inflated property prices.

If the wealthy do decide to hold their wealth in other forms, this could potentially free up land for more productive uses or for those who might not have had access to land ownership before. This could lead to a more equitable distribution of land, which is a form of wealth in itself.

The argument that the wealthy will simply shift their wealth to other less-taxed or non-taxed forms is not necessarily a critique of the LVT, but rather a critique of the overall tax system. If other forms of wealth are undertaxed, the solution would be to reform these areas of the tax system, rather than reject the LVT.

Re: The 'Georgists' Are Out and they want to tax your land

#47

Post by outside1234 »

AlexandrB wrote: post #19
303uru wrote: post #10

I'm a huge proponent of land tax. Here's why I think it's worth considering: 1. Economic Efficiency: Unlike income or consumption taxes, an LVT is non-distortionary. It doesn't discourage productive activities like work, saving, or investment. Land is a fixed resource; its supply doesn't change with price or tax fluctuations. Therefore, an LVT wouldn't distort market incentives, unlike other taxes. By shifting the ta…

> Sustainable Land Use Hmmm, I don't get this point. If the incentive is to sell of develop your land what happens to "fallow" land that serves as a habitat for plants or animals? Seems like this would encourage developing land even if it's in a suboptimal location and would otherwise remain fallow, which seems less sustainable than the status quo.

Land in a suboptimal location would have a much lower value and lower taxes presumably.

This is targeted at that parking lot in San Francisco that really should be an underground parking lot with 1 story of retail at the ground floor and 4 stories of housing above it.

Re: The 'Georgists' Are Out and they want to tax your land

#48

Post by jjoonathan »

Has someone written up a comparison of LVT vs Rolling Leases (i.e. perpetual land ownership is replaced by 30-40 year leases)? Rolling leases just seem to have more good flexibility and less bad flexibility.

By "good flexibility" I mean options to convert from perpetual ownership without screwing current owners -- our perpetual ownership model involves extremely favorable tax treatment at certain stages (capital gains forgiveness, like kind exchanges, cost basis step up) and you could make these benefits contingent on a conversion to a 99 year lease or something. I believe there is data that shows people have a stated preference for perpetual over 99 year, but they have a revealed preference that is neutral between the two, and this is how you could achieve the conversion without seizing land.

By "bad flexibility" I mean that LVT calculations seem easier to sabotage to blatantly favor the upper crust. If they can do it for income / capital gains tax, they can do it for LVT. Rolling leases, however, have a pretty transparent periodic price finding mechanism. Nothing is perfect, the treatment of improvements at renewal/auction time is a likely vector for skullduggery, but to my intuition it still seems better than LVT due to having more eyes and competing interests focused on the process.

Anyway, this is a "butterfly idea" where I haven't put enough thought into it to have a strongly informed opinion one way or the other and I want to know if someone knows of scholarly work on the subject.

Re: The 'Georgists' Are Out and they want to tax your land

#49

Post by kdmccormick »

AlexandrB wrote: post #19
303uru wrote: post #10

I'm a huge proponent of land tax. Here's why I think it's worth considering: 1. Economic Efficiency: Unlike income or consumption taxes, an LVT is non-distortionary. It doesn't discourage productive activities like work, saving, or investment. Land is a fixed resource; its supply doesn't change with price or tax fluctuations. Therefore, an LVT wouldn't distort market incentives, unlike other taxes. By shifting the ta…

> Sustainable Land Use Hmmm, I don't get this point. If the incentive is to sell of develop your land what happens to "fallow" land that serves as a habitat for plants or animals? Seems like this would encourage developing land even if it's in a suboptimal location and would otherwise remain fallow, which seems less sustainable than the status quo.

It's a good concern to bring up.

The market will help to a certain extent, because land in the countryside is not going to be assessed (and therefore taxed) nearly as highly as land in the city center. "Vacant lots" out in the countryside are great, but in the city they are a scourge.

That said, the government will need to step in to protect urban and semiurban greenspaces/greenways, because LVT would indeed encourage development of those. (Extreme example, Central Park would be assessed as worth billions of dollars and taxed many millions a year).

I think, ideally, local and state gov'ts would either buy or grant tax easements on urban green areas. If done right, LVT could then incentivize developers to either use the land for buildings, or turn it into a greenspace, avoiding the gross middle-ground of parking lots and other low-value and use.

Re: The 'Georgists' Are Out and they want to tax your land

#50

Post by fredgrott »

303uru wrote: post #10

I'm a huge proponent of land tax. Here's why I think it's worth considering: 1. Economic Efficiency: Unlike income or consumption taxes, an LVT is non-distortionary. It doesn't discourage productive activities like work, saving, or investment. Land is a fixed resource; its supply doesn't change with price or tax fluctuations. Therefore, an LVT wouldn't distort market incentives, unlike other taxes. By shifting the ta…

I can tell you have never talked to any family farmers.

May I suggest a more accurate tax....Capital Value Added Tax...we have extremely large warping of the tax systems and political systems by uncontrolled capitalism run amok.

Start with hedge fund tax of 3%, ah ah before you complain several large hedge funds have stated they would be in favor of such a tax as it addresses inequality without damaging hedge funds.

Post reply on HN